Verbatim

The Jan. 15 issue of The New York Times published an article by Gretchen Morgenson ("Arbitration, Litigation, Aggravation") about a complaint filed by a trust set by Helen Cohen involving an investment account Cohen opened before her death. Below, in its entirety, is a letter written by Jim Blaine to Morgenson.

Ms. Gretchen Morgenson

New York Times

REF: Article: Arbitration, Litigation, Aggravation

Dear Ms. Morgenson:

Was, of course, surprised to find from your article that State Employees' Credit Union was an abuser of widows and orphans! Certainly not how SECU is generally viewed, nor an impression supported by the facts in the case.

Believe your readers would like to know:

Ms. Cohen purchased the investment in question from XCU Capital brokerage in September 2005. Ms. Cohen has never had an account with SECU.

The XCU Capital brokerage investment representative on the transaction, Mr. James Trujillo, was working through USE Credit Union in San Diego, Calif.

In September 2007, XCU Capital was acquired by the brokerage firm LPL located in Boston, Mass. Individual brokerage accounts were transferred from XCU Capital to LPL.

In January 2008, SECU acquired the corporate brokerage "shell" of XCU, after all accounts had been transferred, and our "due diligence" found no existing complaints/liabilities associated with XCU Capital.

The brokerage charter was moved to North Carolina and renamed SECU Brokerage Services in May 2008. Ms. Cohen does not have an account with SECU Brokerage.

Ms. Cohen's complaint was filed in May 2009. (So much for our liability research!)

SECU, under California law, has been placed in the position to arbitrate/litigate this matter. A position which continues to amaze us! All parties currently characterize themselves as victims!

The merits of this case do need to be resolved, but hopefully you can understand our concern with the implications of your article. We would like to yell slander, libel, retraction, apology; but perhaps from The New York Times perspective, the word "treasonable" best applies. Treasonable? Yes, treasonable, since many of your critics say the newspaper has lost its way, is past its prime and the quality of journalism represented by your article certainly gives "aid and comfort" to your enemies!

Definitely not up to "the standard of The Times" nor Pulitzer quality. You smeared us all.